/lit/ - Literature

>>14074710
>Why do so many people oppose the belief?

Because those people are not incels.

>>14074710
It's correct, and the eastern sages and mystics have always known this. But if you don't attain to knowledge of Reality, you transmigrate to another life after the death of the body. You can't escape the ride until you delve deeper.

>>14074710
Who cares what other people do?

>>14074710
Remember that there's always a future frens
No matter if it's good or bad, there is always something down that dark tunnel

>>14074733
>But if you don't attain to knowledge of Reality, you transmigrate to another life after the death of the body.
Got a source on this?

I'm glad I exist. Life is worth it despite the suffering.

Also anti-natalists should unironically kill themselves. It's the logical conclusion of your maladaptive philosophy.

>>14074710
>clearly correct
yikes

type of person unironically to flagpole eugenics. get out while you still can. no light at the end of these tunnels.

>>14074927
that would cause more suffering to people around us

Because they can't win aganist their biological "programming"

Neither can we not having kids will only make us miserable

>>14074710
Because people have free agency.

>>14074969
Hence the invention of the murder suicide

>>14074969
What about the suffering of potential children averted when news of your suicide spreads awareness of antinatalism? Has any antinatalist ever killed themselves for the cause? It just seems like a convenient excuse for you to face the reality of your childish deathcult, because deep down you know it's all horseshit and if you really looked death in the eye you'd throw it all away in an instant to see one more sunrise.

Besides, it's not like anyone would actually miss a miserable antinatalist fuck.

>>14074879
the Upanishads

For anybody who doesnt want to read through the trash fire that this thread will eventually devolve into Ill sum it up:
The anti-natalist will continue to argue that life is not worth living, that there are too many humans, or various takes on how a baby doesnt consent to be born. This will inevitably lead to suggestions that the antinatalist kills themselves, not out of spite, but to prove their worldview of life not being worth living. The antinatalist will make some excuse, fear or cowordace or how they can still improve the world by spreading their dogma. And its all just name calling after that.

>>14074710
>Anti-natalism is clearly correct.
No, anti-natalism places the origin of all problems after coitus. Stop having sex.

Because we are but human; slave to our nature, blind to our salvation. We must be helped along our destiny.

Because God himself said be fruitful and multiply

>>14074710
Because its soulless

>>14074710
Because it's based on flawed reasoning and not 'clearly correct'. Suffering exists; what would be better, is for suffering not to exist. But that's separate from life existing. All things being equal, life is better than not living. To prevent suffering, you need to end suffering, not by ending living, but by actually ending suffering. Anti-natalists see the world is a world of suffering and cop out, instead of doing anything to make it a better place. They could do their part, and contribute to an eventual post-scarcity automated luxury life where everyone is quite happy compared to the here and now, and where it's way more obvious that it's better to have children than not even on utilitarian grounds. But they want to cop out, also on utilitarian grounds, because they don't want to see the end game, and definitely don't want to do anything to bring about said end game. In other words, they're cowards shying away from their moral responsibility, and pretending to take the higher moral ground. That being said: if you know your children are likelier to suffer, don't have children, I get that very much. But more radical anti-natalism is more general and acts like it's better for everyone to stop having children. Not a fan.

>>14074710
Because I'm not a utilitarian. I don't want kids myself for egotistical reasons but I couldn't give less of a fuck if society at large does.

Everyone here is mistaking something, the anti-natalist position is believing it is wrong to START a life, not ending a current one.

>>14075207
Based desu

>>14074710
Existence in the womb is better than non-existence

>>14074710
Doesn't it rest on the presupposition that suffering is bad? If so it's clearly wrong.

>>14074710
You are espousing a belief that people are programmed against on a biological level. There is also the fact that people usually are trained throughout life to focus on the positive aspects of life as a form of self-preservation. What anti-natalism is positing in other words that all their effort, is literally worth nothing. It should be no surprise to you why people react with mockery, spitefulness and derision.
>>14074927
Death and life are parts of the same thing. Both being equally repugnant, there is no contradiction in the choice to remain living but to refrain from causing yourself and others suffering. Although, I personally think that it is okay for a select group of people to have children but only if they are mature, intelligent, understanding and honest with themselves and their offspring. Sadly people that are crazy about having children are usually driven by concupiscence or their biological clock, then they wind up with children they don't really love, being burdens to others, who will perpetuate the cycle anew.

I think once you reach a certain level of self awareness and awareness of the experiences of other conscious beings (including non-humans) then anti-natalism does indeed become obvious. But before a person reaches that point (which they may never reach) I don't think it's possible to convince anyone. It's akin to arguing someone out of their biology. It's another evil of human consciousness, that it imprisons us within our biological drives.

>>14077418
tell me your reasons for presuming the opposite

>>14077459
something redemptive something something jesus something

>>14077418
Your use of the word suffering is likely equivocal. You probably don't mean that burning your face off with acid or getting shot in the leg six times is somehow beneficial, although if you do please livestream because I want to watch. While this use of "suffering" might not be what you are talking about in particular; Which to you may be the uncomfortable sensation you may feel when you try to move, from your chair to the microwave or maybe that time you took up running and gave up because it was too much "suffering". It is the intense destructive suffering that the antinatalist tries to talk about.